Subject: [Ntp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 08:52:36 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Time Protocol WG of the IETF.

        Title           : The update registries draft
        Author          : Rich Salz
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-00.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2021-07-30

Abstract:
   The Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Network Time Security (NTS)
   documents define a number of assigned number registries, collectively
   called the NTP registries.  Some registries have wrong values, some
   registries do not follow current common practice, and some are just
   right.  For the sake of completeness, this document reviews all NTP
   and NTS registries.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/richsalz/draft-rsalz-update-registries.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries/

There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries-00.html

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:19:18 +0000

In this draft I removed the distinctions that are currently in the NTS registries.  For example, 
Range 	Registration Procedures
	0-1023 	IETF Review
	1024-16383 	Specification Required
	16384-32767 	Private or Experimental Use

I think the 1023 stuff is reminiscent of "reserved ports" from BSD.  But I do not care very much, and if the WG agrees then I will remove that change. My reasons were that after a couple of years as one of the TLS experts, everything as "spec required" seems okay, we have a large number space, IETF review is a very high burden, and there's nothing special about those low numbers except vanity. :)

I am curious what the WG thinks, and nudge Daniel to post.